Missing Rules

[clearstream]

I disagree. If you are rolling at all that means there's some pressure or dramatic tension. A bad roll represents bad luck, unexpected circumstances or other vagaries of fate. So the Str3 character got lucky while the Str 20 character hooked his toe on launch. Those events inform play. The swinginess of the d20 is what makes it a game.

There is tension when you try to jump an unusually long distance. A character with Strength 10 can reliably long jump 10 feet (with a run up). If they need to jump 11 feet to escape certain doom, then that requires an Athletics check. It is left up to the DM what DC is needed. The ruling I use would call for a DC 11 check if there were no other factors in play.

 

[clearstream]

Realistically, max distance is not achievable with each jump. Running long jumpers often have multiple feet of difference between their various jumps. If I wanted to introduce randomness into jumping, I'd probably allow up to 2/3 distance to be achieved automatically. If you want to go farther than that, you roll a D20 and add your athletics bonus and that's how far you would go to a maximum of your strength and a minimum of 2/3. Special circumstances such as bounding off of a rock or pulling yourself farther on a stalactite and the like would be required to go farther than strength distance, in order to keep it unusual.

That seems fine for your game, but restricting to a reliable 2/3rds disregards RAW, which expressly gives the distance a character's jump covers as equalling Strength. (PHB 182.)

 

[Sadras]

Realistically, max distance is not achievable with each jump. Running long jumpers often have multiple feet of difference between their various jumps. If I wanted to introduce randomness into jumping, I'd probably allow up to 2/3 distance to be achieved automatically. If you want to go farther than that, you roll a D20 and add your athletics bonus and that's how far you would go to a maximum of your strength and a minimum of 2/3. Special circumstances such as bounding off of a rock or pulling yourself farther on a stalactite and the like would be required to go farther than strength distance, in order to keep it unusual.

That is a fair house rule. I'd easily accept that as player and DM.

 

[Maxperson]

PHB 182 "When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet equal to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet immediately before the jump." The language here leaves little scope for doubt IMO.

You might argue that this disallows players to jump a shorter distance. That would sometimes be prevented by the impossibility of doing so, e.g. by terrain, so cannot reasonably apply. Per RAW, a check is only needed for jumping an unusually long distance. Usual = Strength in feet.

This is what mine says on page 182.

"Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump."

Are you sure you are reading yours correctly? And if so, when did you buy yours? Maybe the earlier printings said something different.

 

[robus]

That's not RAW. RAW is you can jump UP TO your strength in feet. So you can jump 1-12 feet with a running jump.

with certainty.

 

[Maxperson]

That seems fine for your game, but restricting to a reliable 2/3rds disregards RAW, which expressly gives the distance a character's jump covers as equalling Strength. (PHB 182.)

Right, which is why I said "If I wanted to introduce randomness into jumping." Clearly I was talking about creating a house rule.

 

[robus]

Right, which is why I said "If I wanted to introduce randomness into jumping." Clearly I was talking about creating a house rule.

i really don’t understand this hill you guys are wanting to die on. The rules provide guidance on the standard jumping distance available to a character with certainty, no check required. A character wants to push beyond that and attempt an unusually long jump simply by gambling that they think they can make it if they really try, and you’re all pushing back saying this is completely unwarranted by the RAW?!

This seems like such a basic implementation of standard action resolution my mind can’t comprehend why you’re fighting it so much?

There is always a region between 100% success and 100% failure. Why can’t you see it here?

 

[Maxperson]

i really don’t understand this hill you guys are wanting to die on. The rules provide guidance on the standard jumping distance available to a character with certainty, no check required. A character wants to push beyond that and attempt an unusually long jump simply by gambling that they think they can make it if they really try, and you’re all pushing back saying this is completely unwarranted by the RAW?!

This seems like such a basic implementation of standard action resolution my mind can’t comprehend why you’re fighting it so much?

There is always a region between 100% success and 100% failure. Why can’t you see it here?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. All we are saying is a player in our game would have to actually describe what the PC is doing. It's really simple and easy.

 

[Sadras]

Right, which is why I said "If I wanted to introduce randomness into jumping." Clearly I was talking about creating a house rule.

Just thought of this now - what if your 2/3 rules IS the certainty which the PHB provides, i.e. the distances provided in the PHB are in fact the 2/3's house rule you are actually advocating for and anything further would require an Athletics check, exactly like your house rule.

I'm inclined to go with that interpretation, less house rules.

 

[Oofta]

If nothing else, this discussion has made me realize how terrible the jump rules are. I propose the following.

Jumping requires an Athletics check. The DC of the jump is based on the distance jumped. For a standing long jump the zdC equals 5 plus twice the distance jumped. For a running long jump the DC equals 5 plus the distance jumped. For a standing high jump the DC equals 5 per foot jumped and for a running high jump it is 5 per 2 feet jumped. The maximum distances are limited by the characters strength score, per the movement rules. Note that unusual conditions can grant advantage (using a sprinboard) or disadvantage (slippery ground) to this roll. Magic and other effects can increase the maximum distance as usual.

I think the rules are fine. Well, maybe they're only fair but are as good or better than the alternative. I'm glad I can set a DC based on my judgement and not have someone stopping the game to flip through the book to find the appropriate DC.

As far as all the arguments I'd also conclude that some people take the letter of the rules far more to heart than I do. That, and i don't see these arguments at the table. The DM makes a call and people move on.

Personally I don't see a reason for a hard cutoff and I think it lowers dramatic tension. If someone wants to risk falling to their doom by jumping a few extra feet who am I to stop them?